Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DANGIT! I just bought Vista!!!

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 25, 2008 9:50:24 PM

UPDATE: Ok, I know I'm an indecisive MORON but I just cancelled the order..........Which would you go with? I can't decide. I'm a photographer, and I only want to use this computer for photography things

JEEZ its been forever since I've been this apprehensive about anything! I am terrified that I made the wrong decision with Vista. I just barely bought it..... I've got a really slow P4 now with 512 gb ram, running XP, but since I am making a new build (e2180 proc, ds3l mobo, radeon 3870 gfx, 2gb ram) I thought I'd go with vista, mostly because the SP1 is coming out soon.......

TELL ME ONE THING PLEEAASE: Will my new computer run vista faster than my old computer ran XP?? I want to see a definite improvement in speed..especially for things like photoshop responsiveness

More about : dangit bought vista

February 25, 2008 9:59:57 PM

Your new machine will run vistaids faster, obviously not as fast as XP though.
February 25, 2008 10:23:14 PM

ajsellaroli I agree with:

n00b_SLicer
Your new machine will run vistaids faster, obviously not as fast as XP though
.


also make sure your ram will work ok with the gigabyte ds3l mobo . and ps get a good one it does matter.lol
Related resources
February 26, 2008 12:17:39 AM

UPDATE: lol..I just cancelled the order (that's newegg for you). I need more time to decide

Seriously, though, I can't decide. Which would you go with?
a b B Homebuilt system
February 26, 2008 12:24:43 AM

Getting a new system, not a hardcore gamer, go ahead with Vista and never look back-you won't be sorry.
a b B Homebuilt system
February 26, 2008 12:25:29 AM

I would go with XP x64. Then again I am kind of bias towards XP since I know that my stuff will work with it. ;) 
Also Vista support is going to get better by the time SP2 comes out. SP1 already increased the compatibility, performance, etc a little.

This might help:
rwpritchett said:
That's good. Since you have the retail version, you qualify to get the 64-bit version for the price of the DVD media plus S&H. It comes to about $10 and uses your existing Vista product key/license. So, if you're really concerned about not getting all 4 gigs, you can opt for 64-bit. If you don't like 64-bit, you can stick with 32-bit and accept the missing RAM.

Go here for details:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/2057/ordermedia/d...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248154-30-vista-home-...

also check out:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/

February 26, 2008 12:27:36 AM

Spend your money on psychiatric help. That is unless you are a woman. In that case, this is normal.
a b B Homebuilt system
February 26, 2008 12:37:13 AM

I am still buying XP pro. I look at Vista and I look at XP pro.

1. What does Vista have that XP don't have ? I can't think of anything that matters to me.

2. What effect will Vista have compared to XP Pro ?

Newer so more bugaboos need to be straightened out.
Unfamiliar interface....won't matter after 2-3 weeks probably
Will be undoubtedly slower than XP pro would be on same hardware....but will I care ?

here's some quotes:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/05/06NF-save-xp-...
"Users' personal reactions, positive or negative, ultimately impact the bottom line and help drive the business decision of whether to roll out Vista across an organization. It's all about basic cost-benefit analysis, says Gartner's Silver. In most businesses, Vista offers few compelling advantages for users while introducing challenges. The cost of change is too high for the perceived benefit. For example, users often complain about Vista's constant nagging about possible system threats, about applications that no longer run, or about files that appear to be "lost" because they've been moved to new places by the OS, Silver said. "

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/24/03FE-save-xp-...
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/07/31/Businesses-ha...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140283/article.html

As a tip for the future, you get get answers much faster by searching these forums rather than posting. In the last two weeks, there';s gotta have been at least a dozen XP or Vista threads. You'll find that many of the most knowledgable users stop responding after they have answered the same questions for the 0th or 1th time so searching often brings a lot of info you won't get on a new post.



February 26, 2008 1:23:57 AM

My advice on hardware:

Photoshop is CPU heavy, not GPU. Drop the 3870X2, go with a single 3870/8800GT and spend the extra money on at least a Q6600.
February 26, 2008 2:18:17 AM

Ok, thanks guys. I'm sorry I sort of spazzed out there.. I'm really anxious to get everything up and running - I'm almost there, as you can see here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/249166-31-photographi...

Just a few small steps stand between me and forgetting pentium 4's and geforce 4 go 440's forever. As far as your advice goes, I agree with it. All of yours.

About the XP 64 bit, however, I do have some interesting info that might change your mind about that. On the article here on Tom's that talks about putting 8gb of ram on vista 64 bit, they gave the EXTREMELY interesting information that follows:


"We can also see that the 64-bit versions take up quite a bit more memory as well. Again, the explanation is very simple: all of the variables are no longer only 32 bits long, but 64 bits instead. Typically, this makes applications between 20% and 40% larger, which consequently results in a higher memory footprint as well. File formats such as music files or videos are not affected by this.

The upshot is that it doesn't make sense to install a 64-bit version of Vista in order to better utilize 4 GB of memory simply because the 32 bit version would only recognize 3.5 GB. The problem is that while it is true that you would "gain" the missing memory, you would also immediately lose it to the system due to the 64-bit version's larger memory footprint. Thus, using a 64-bit version really only makes sense with larger memory sizes."

I found that info here: http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/p...


Isn't that interesting? It looks like maybe it isn't worth putting up with 64 bit compatibility issues after all.. what do you guys think? For this reason I am now seriously considering just getting XP 32 bit with 4gigs of ram.
February 26, 2008 2:36:26 AM

Vista with 2 gigs of ram and a e2180 cpu OC to 3.33 is hell fast. Xp dont make a difference. I actually like Vista better. Vista haters tried a year ago when it was bad, but generally all bugs are gone.

Most Vista haters try to run old hardware and not enough ram, then they cry crap. Vista needs 1g minimum IMO and 2 is plenty. As long as your hardware and periphreals are new and vista certified your golden. If your printer or something is 5 years old it probably wont work. XP is gettin dumped in June this year. Bye Bye support soon after.
February 26, 2008 2:41:28 AM

Go with Vista x64 and the new computer. Since you're a photographer, I will have to agree with the poster above who mentioned the Q6600 - it will speed you up quite a bit. Cut back on the graphics to an 8800GT or even a 9600GT, and up your RAM to 4GB - photoediting is CPU and RAM intensive so you want your PC fortified on those fronts. And your GPU will be good enough to play more or less any game at decent settings. Vista will run tons faster on your new PC than XP on your old. You won't be dissapointed, Vista is not bad at all, especially now with SP1 coming around which will make it even faster.
February 26, 2008 2:44:29 AM

Go with Vista. I was one of those that held out until about 2-3 weeks ago and it was the smoothest OS installation and I only had to install 2 drivers after the initial install and my old printer (HP 750 all in one) worked without having to install any software or drivers. I have had that printer for over 5 years!

No issues what so ever...
February 26, 2008 2:51:24 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
Most Vista haters try to run old hardware and not enough ram, then they cry crap. XP is gettin dumped in June this year. Bye Bye support soon after.
I'm a Vista hater and I have a Q6600 @ 3G/1333, P35-DQ6, 2G DDR2 800 and a Raptor. Additionally, XP support is going to expire in 2012, not next year. That also assumes they don't extend it like they did with 98.

@OP: Vista will run fine.
February 26, 2008 3:02:40 AM

Dont ever trust M$. They will do what they want when they want. Windows 7 could be 2009. M$ wont support 3 OS's sorry. They never have and never will.
February 26, 2008 3:23:19 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
Dont ever trust M$. They will do what they want when they want. Windows 7 could be 2009. M$ wont support 3 OS's sorry. They never have and never will.
Vista already stated that they will provide updates until 2012. If they don't there will be a backlash the likes you have never seen.
February 26, 2008 3:25:11 AM

1786793,17,111249 said:
Vista quotemsg]




You mean M$?

Dont hold your breath.
February 26, 2008 3:40:57 AM

Then wait for the rioting in the streets.
February 26, 2008 3:56:50 AM

ajsellaroli said:
I've got a really slow P4 now with 512 gb ram, running XP, but since I am making a new build (e2180 proc, ds3l mobo, radeon 3870 gfx, 2gb ram) I thought I'd go with vista, mostly because the SP1 is coming out soon.......

TELL ME ONE THING PLEEAASE: Will my new computer run vista faster than my old computer ran XP?? I want to see a definite improvement in speed..especially for things like photoshop responsiveness


Your new computer will be faster than your old P4 system regardless of the OS you put on it. You are making a hardware jump. For example this link gives you an idea what the e2160 can do vs. the best performing P4 in the photoshop test.
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=883&model2=901&chart=437

As far as Vista or XP goes...
Is your version of photoshop 100% vista compatible? Is all of the other editing software you plan on using 100% vista compatible? Is there any other software that you cannot live without that is not 100% vista compatible?
If you answer no to any of the following questions and don't feel like shelling out more money for new software then the answer is simple... XP.

If the answer is yes to all of them then it's up to you. Either OS will give you definite gains over your old system.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm yelling or being rude. Just wanted to be sure that you didn't miss the point. My apologies in advance.
February 26, 2008 4:13:48 AM

Im totally amazed at how many people get along and/or seem apologetic for how they may seem to come across in thier postings. Im impressed.

I know theres some backlashers here and that will be anywhere you have people but overall there are a good group of members here and it makes it more appealing to return knowing this...

a b B Homebuilt system
February 26, 2008 4:16:41 AM

I don't know why people seem to feel that it is a matter of loving or hating, it's just reality:

Vista got better with SP1 ..... XP got better with SP1 too....and then it got a lot better with SP2.....and XP users have had to install 113 critical patches since SP2 was installed. Vista will get better with SP2 and then better again with SP3. But Vista's SP3 isn't here so any discussion of comparing XP's maturity to Vista's can go no further than 3 is bigger than 1.

No one is saying Vista isn't or can't be fast. Keep throwing hardware at an OS and it will get faster and faster. But again the fact remains that on identical hardware, XP pro will be faster than Vista. It's like gravity, it's the law. Nothing I have ever thrown up in the air has not come down (except for a cheese doodle once that a seagull grabbed) and no MS OS has ever been faster than it's predecessor....ever.

It's been widely publicized of late that Vista was just benchmarked against XP in a series of MS office tasks.....XP completed them twice as fast as Vista did at 1 GB of RAM.....when they added a 2nd GB, Vista's speed increased by 4 %. !00 % & 54 % are still pretty far apart. But will something taking 1 second versus 0.54 seconds affect how you sue your computer ? It depends.

Will this matter to you.....With MS Office not at all cause I can't type as fast as it does things and I never see myself waiting around for stuff to happen even when I use an old P600 w/ 512 MB. But that has NT4 on it so it flies with that much RAM. I even use AutoCAD on it w/o issue.

But when buying new boxes, there were reasons to go to the newer OS, hot docking, USB.....Vista problem is it don't have that "must have feature". So it's strictly a preference as long as you throw enough RAM at it. Every XP box I built had 2 GB on it....to try and match that with Vista, I'd go with 4 GB.

First time I use an OS, it goes on as a dual boot. I use both side by side and see if there's a difference. If there is, I use the one that works best and that goes on any new boxes from then on. Old boxes will stay as is as no one on the planet has ever shown a positive ROI by upgrading a box to a new OS.
February 26, 2008 4:26:35 AM

when i made my primary system vista, i used VMware to capture my xp system to a Virtual machine. Any time i wish i can have my old xp dual monitor setup running, with the 'newness' of vista underneath.
February 26, 2008 4:56:09 AM

I am an hobby Photographer and I like vista. It Runs Photoshop (version 8) just fine. I truly think that Vista might be a better choice. for one Vista seem to stay fast while XP slows down over time ( my XP install took over 30 min to boot last time compared to a quick 2 min or less vista boot)

I also think that vista does a better job of sorting pictures then xp does.
February 26, 2008 5:03:04 AM

I'm not sure why some of you thought I got the 3870 x2. I just got the normal one, it was a great deal too. And I definitely plan to go with either the 6600 or the e8400, I just don't know which yet. In the meantime, I plan to try my hand at OC'ing the e2180.

As for the Vista vs XP idea... your conflicting opinions have to stop, can't we all just agree :D  lol. No, I read every single comment and article you guys linked to, thank you very much for it.

Back on topic: About the dual boot idea; it's not going to work, because I can't afford two operating systems. I am already a little bit over budget. As for what programs are compatible with vista that I use, I can tell you this: I CANNOT live without google picasa, photoshop, lightroom, firefox, counterstrike :D , and that's pretty much it.

Ok, so it's looking like more people are saying go with xp, am I right? But then should I go with vista if it supports all of my programs?

And as far as 64 bit operating systems go, I don't know why you guys keep talking about those. From the information I gained from that article "Vista Workshop: More Ram, More speed." It isn't worth it to get 64 bit. Here's a quote I took from that article that'll help you see my point of view:


"We can also see that the 64-bit versions take up quite a bit more memory as well. Again, the explanation is very simple: all of the variables are no longer only 32 bits long, but 64 bits instead. Typically, this makes applications between 20% and 40% larger, which consequently results in a higher memory footprint as well. File formats such as music files or videos are not affected by this.

The upshot is that it doesn't make sense to install a 64-bit version of Vista in order to better utilize 4 GB of memory simply because the 32 bit version would only recognize 3.5 GB. The problem is that while it is true that you would "gain" the missing memory, you would also immediately lose it to the system due to the 64-bit version's larger memory footprint. Thus, using a 64-bit version really only makes sense with larger memory sizes."
February 26, 2008 5:13:43 AM

My system = Vista 64, 8GB RAM, Q6600

It kicks butt, takes names, goes to sleep at night and wakes up in the morning ready to do it again.

Have not had a single hardware hickup, no BSOD or whatever.

Why not go with Vista?
February 26, 2008 5:33:51 AM

Well, to compensate for Vistas memory hunger and 64 bit capability, Windows XP (32 bit) can only utilize and see 3.25G of memory while Vista (64 bit) can see and utilize 128G. In the future, I would say that if the "footprint" is larger and causes Vista to use more memory then its capability of utilizing so much more memory would have to more than compensate for this.

The only reason to not go with Vista 64 bit is the fact that some of your programs will not be compatible. If you try to install it anyway you will get a 32 bit file error message and you cant install it anyway.

As I said before, I installed Vista 64 bit and it was a flawless installation and I have rarely booted to my XP OS since.

If you dont want to go 64 bit then go with the Vista 32 bit OS. Simple fix...

If Vista scares you that bad then go with XP. It scared me too at one point but I see now its a good OS. If you go with XP dont get the home version. I read in another post and then online that home doesnt utilize a dual core cpu so go with Pro or Media Center 2005.
February 26, 2008 5:50:56 AM

ajsellaroli said:

Ok, so it's looking like more people are saying go with xp, am I right? But then should I go with vista if it supports all of my programs?

And as far as 64 bit operating systems go, I don't know why you guys keep talking about those. From the information I gained from that article "Vista Workshop: More Ram, More speed." It isn't worth it to get 64 bit. Here's a quote I took from that article that'll help you see my point of view:

The upshot is that it doesn't make sense to install a 64-bit version of Vista in order to better utilize 4 GB of memory simply because the 32 bit version would only recognize 3.5 GB. The problem is that while it is true that you would "gain" the missing memory, you would also immediately lose it to the system due to the 64-bit version's larger memory footprint. Thus, using a 64-bit version really only makes sense with larger memory sizes."


The larger footprint is due to superfetch and 64bit words I believe. Superfetch takes commonly used programs and dumps them to ram for quicker access and, well I think you get the 64bit word part.

If Vista supports all your programs consider it. Personally, I might swing by the local computer store/best buy and take Vista for a quick test drive on the demo machines. You should find a system close to what your building, at least processor and amount of ram. As long as you ignore the sales people you should have a better idea if Vista is what you want or continue using XP. Jack does have some really good points BTW.

It keeps you from having buyers remorse. Any issues you cause is geeksquad's problem. You can go home to your better computer.


StevieD - good to hear since that's my build too

Edit: grammer
February 26, 2008 8:48:11 AM

go with vista; it'll thank you later down the line as you won't have to upgrade your software...
February 26, 2008 9:55:34 AM

You have XP in your old system, do you have a XP disk or was it preinstalled? Also are you planning on using the old PC? If you have a disk and are planning on no longer using your old system you could just use your old copy of XP for the new build since you are over budget anyway. If you need a new OS go with Vista, I've been using it since March and it's solid and stable and cheaper than XP. This would be my suggestion.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
February 26, 2008 10:42:41 AM

Unless you're getting the e6600 at an incredible deal, stay away from it. It's the same price as the e8400 on Newegg.
February 26, 2008 11:10:57 AM

Here's what it all boils down to:

A new fast build will run;
Windows Vista Ultimate 64 with 8GB of ram, just as fast as Windows XP Pro 32 with 2GB of ram.
Read the Toms Hardware article about Win Vista Ultimate 64.





Rattus Viola: Sino non they quisnam operor non have scientia futurus vestri rector.



February 26, 2008 11:11:32 AM

Dude, how many of these threads are you gonna start? Chill. You can't make a bad choice here, both OS will serve you.
February 26, 2008 11:15:35 AM

StevieD said:
My system = Vista 64, 8GB RAM, Q6600

It kicks butt, takes names, goes to sleep at night and wakes up in the morning ready to do it again.

Have not had a single hardware hickup, no BSOD or whatever.

Your pen*s = very small. :kaola: 
February 26, 2008 12:12:17 PM

roadrunner197069 said:
Vista with 2 gigs of ram and a e2180 cpu OC to 3.33 is hell fast. .


I have a E2180 and I can not push it to 3.33. It will not go there. I have a good baord (maximus formula) and I am not a complete newb to OCing. OC results will vary.

OP, if you don't game, the go with XP. The only reason to go with Vista is to have the DX10.
Are you really considering a 64 bit OS? Is your software 64 bit software? If not, don't go there.
February 26, 2008 12:13:10 PM

As pointed out earlier: You are making a highly significant upgrade in hardware, and therefore either OS will be "faster" than what you have now.

Personally - I like playing with new stuff, and my experience with Vista (both 32 and 64 bit) has been and is very positive. But I approached it with a "New OS" hat, bought a couple books on how to use/troubleshoot it, and made the effort to learn. It *is* a different Operating System, and so if you try to treat it like "XP Service Pack 4", you are going to have problems using it: Stuff's moved, it won't behave like you think it ought to, it doesn't 'allow' you to arbitrarily change things when/where/how you want, and it just plain 'feels' different.

Both XP and Vista can be incredibly frustrating if there is an issue and you don't know how to troubleshoot/fix it. The difference is that people are used to XP's foibles and better know how to bend it to their will. When there's device/driver issues in XP, power users know how to deal with it and get the system back to running normally. That isn't the case with Vista (yet?), unless the individual makes it their business to figure it out.


Regarding which OS you should use: Identify your primary software and check with it's maker on how well they support Vista. If the answer is "Yes, They Do", then you may as well install V since the chances are you'll end up doing it later on anyhow. If the answer is "No, they don't support Vista particularly well, as evidenced by notes on limited functionality or whatever" (and you really should check Adobe apps on that....), or you have older devices you must use, or can't be asked to learn a new OS, or have buddies who like to constantly tell you about how "terrible" Vista is and you don't want to deal with hearing them, then you should stay with XP.
February 26, 2008 1:00:32 PM

Quote:
hmm interesting, but what happens if windows 7 actually releases at 2009


I don't mean to come across in a smart way but this is about the same as saying what if they come out with a stock 4ghz cpu after I build my new system?

If you need it "now" and have the money to do so, get it. If something new comes out later, upgrade. That is if you "need it", or in my case "want it" and your budget allows it then upgrade, upgrade and upgrade. I, like most of you that frequent these forums, am constantly scanning for new releases and considering upgrading and do so when I can justify it just as I did yesterday when I decided to finally purchase a Q6600 and a new motherboard to upgrade from an AMD 6000+ setup. It should marginally be around 20% faster so I could actually justify to do so and my wallet was able to take the hit, again...
February 26, 2008 1:39:32 PM

True to the fact that its not the best location to send a youngster on a budget, it does (I'm assuming) offer legit downloads of trials? I can't say for sure for myself but if it does then ok.

There should be some other sites that doesnt promote piracy to recommend. I do know you can go to microsofts website and download a trial of Windows XP 64 bit and try for 14 days.

Believe it or not I had downloaded and installed this on my system to test and liked it and was considering buying it. It expired before I got back around to doing it so later I reinstalled and went directly to microsofts website and got all of the latest updates and that was over 3 months ago and I can still use it. It appears that it "unlocked" my trial copy. Needless to say that hard drive will be moved to my spare setup with that chip and mobo to keep using that OS.

Has anyone else seen this happen before?...

Heres the microsoft link to download and try the trial, this one says 120 days. My copy said 14 days and actually locked me out in that time frame. Maybe they changed it and my copy has been extended. I guess I will find out soon enough...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/trial.ms...
February 26, 2008 1:40:32 PM

Quote:
Are we really to a point that we are encouraging piracy on these forums? :( 



Piracy is getting something without the intention of paying for it. You can download either OS legally and try it for 30 days. That is why M$ made it have 30 days to activate it. If they didnt want you to try it would be automatically activated. When you use the Vista one it even says evaluation version on the desktop. Nothing illegal unless you try to bypass activation after 30 days.
a b B Homebuilt system
February 26, 2008 3:01:40 PM

-Some people need a reason to change OS's. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

-Some people need a reason to stay with the old. I am bored and want something different.

Neither approach is wrong per se unless you don't do your build accordingly and don't walk in with unreasonable expectations.

Businesses OTOH need an ROI. A new OS will not have a positive ROI.

The following are not arguable points:

1. Vista does not have the "killer feature" that previous upgrades have. Hot Docking, USB were things that made people want to upgrade.

2. Every new OS will be slower than the old OS on the same hardware. T No one has ever published anything saying Vista is faster than XP..... No one has ever published anything saying XP is faster than Win2k..... No one has ever published anything saying Win2k is faster than NT4..... No one has ever published anything saying Win95 is faster than W4WGs though this probably had the most documented difference which was W4WGS was 37% faster than Win95. his may or may not be significant depending on what you do but it is indisputable. If a series of tasks takes 3 seconds on Vista and 2.5 seconds on XP do you really care ? If this is the hardest you tax your machine and you don't care then what OS you pick doesn't matter performance wise. Comments like "my new E6800 w/ 8 gigs and 512 MB vid card w/ Vista is faster than my 4 year old malware infested computer that takes 30 minutes to boot" have no relevance. Show me a link where both OS"s were tested on the same hardware and Vista outperformed XP Pro.

3. Every old OS will have better driver support than the new OS. Vendors have had 7 years to address buggies w/ XP, one year with Vista. Is there anyone or any entity that can't accomplish more in 7 years than 1 year ? Again, if there are drivers w/ no issues for you then you don't care. That doesn't invalidate the reasoning of people who do have problems.

4. Every new thing wastes time....if you are on the clock you have to take this into account. Now if you on the clock and you can sit here reading Tomshardware for 90 minutes during working hours, then no the extra time it takes you to learn do things is a non issue. If you are on the clock trying to meet a project deadline and you find yourself wasting time cause you can't find something or how to do something, then this is a negative.

5. Business adoption has been snail like. Many people find it annoying to have to switch back and forth between one OS at work and another at home. "In a just-released poll of more than 250 of its clients, PatchLink noted that only 2 percent said they are already running Vista, while another 9 percent said they planned to roll out Vista in the next three months. A landslide majority, 87 percent, said they would stay with their existing version(s) of Windows. Those numbers contrasted with a similar survey the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based vendor published in December 2006. At the time, 43 percent said they had plans to move to Vista while just 53 percent planned to keep what Windows they had. "....Think about that .....43 % said they wee gonna migrate and after running it on testbeds, that number dropped to 9%. In other words, 8 out of 10 businesses who were going to migrate to Vista changed their mind in a 3 month period. That statistic is astounding.


6. There are issues with Vista that don't exist in XP (Quotes from authors at PS World who switched back to XP after installing Vista - above items not included so as not to be repetitive.):

a) Auto-complete of e-mail addresses in Windows Mail works only with the 29 most recently used contacts and overall the program is slow.

b) User Account Control constantly bugs you when you want to install programs or tweak things.

c) Many users finding WiFi access points they used to sue no longer work.

d) Many finding things they depended on (i.e. Fragmentation analyze window) disappeared.

Again, if none of these things bug you, then it don't matter if you use Vista. But if they do, then the user has a legitimate reason for not upgrading.

7. Security really is a non issue for many. No one will contend that "outta da box" Vista is not more secure than XP, but how many people here are using it that way ? What % of people using a 3rd party firewall ? What % of people using a 3rd party AV ? What % of people using a 3rd party malware scanners ? If you fit in that majority, then what Vista comes with in the box is not an issue.

8. Vista has "fool you" features that make it appear to go faster. Prefetch preloads files it's thinks you might use so they load faster after pushing the button. So at some point before you launch a program, it preloads a substantial portion of that program. Then for as long as you keep doing what you are doing, performance is hampered by the resources dedicated to that program you are not using. Then when you click the start icon, it appears to magically load faster than you were used to. And the word "magically" is appropriate cause it's not real. If we both run the 100 yard dash and it takes you 12 seconds to run the 100 yards, and it takes me 7 seconds to run to the fifty yard mark before you start and then another 7 seconds to run the last 50 yards, what counts. I got to the finish line 5 seconds before you did, but I also started before you did. If your system demands are such that the overhead of non running programs is no issue, then you should leave prefetch on. If not, turn it off.

Let's compare the different approaches to selecting an OS's to a pair of boots.

1. One guy hikes through Maine all year long, he crosses streams and gets the boots wet, he walks on moss covered rock as well as forest floors, the boots are well broken in and he can wear them for long periods w/o getting blisters and they keep his feet warm down to 0 degrees.

2. The other guy lives in Florida. He loves the stylishness of his new boots compared to his friend's from Maine. The boots only keep your feet warn down to 20 degrees but he lives in Florida so he don't care. Florida's idea of a mountain is a pile of dirt so differences in sole grip are a non issue. He never hikes more than an hour at a time so the stiffness of the boots don't bother him as he doesn't wear them long enough to get blisters.

Now any argument that the Florida guy tries to give the Main guy won't ring true to the Maine guy and visa versa. Both have made choices that are perfectly appropriate for their usage. But if the Florida guy starts claiming that his boots are just as warm as the Main guys or that he can wear his boots as long as the Main guy can w/o getting blisters, then the only person he is fooling is himself.
a b B Homebuilt system
February 26, 2008 3:16:20 PM

I won't install Vista because I still enjoy playing Sacred sometimes, and Vista won't run it.
I've heard rumors of Sacred 2 though, so perhaps then I'll put Vista on a new build.
February 26, 2008 3:37:39 PM

Quote:
I have to disagree, definately go with vista64, I did and Im very happy with it. I cant understand why people want to load old XP on a new computer. Unless your hardware is lacking or your out for the highest frame rate for bragging rights, I cannot see why you would go with old XP.

Dude your overclock is probably limited by your ram, not your mobo. You should easily be able to get it to 3.3 just by raising the fsb.


My ram is not my limiting factor. Stock PC6400 (DDR2 800) runs at 400MHz. I have mine pushed to 510 MHz with no stability issues. I could and have altered the ratio to be less then 400MHz so that I could find the limit to the CPU. 1:1 ratio at 333 system bus is DDR2 667. If I could leave the multiplier on the chip at 10 and bump to 333 system bus, I would do so. I can't push the chip past 3,200. It really will not go there. I have a coolit freezone; my chip never gets above 35C. Even when I push the livin' hell out of it. My PSU is a toughpower with 750 watts. I am telling you with all confidence that the E1280 is not gauranteed to go to 3.33

Back to the OS. Why go with a 64 bit os unless the programs the OP runs, have a 64 bit version? That makes no since. :bounce: 
February 26, 2008 3:56:47 PM

Vista FTW on any new machine.
February 26, 2008 4:18:55 PM

3.0-3.33 is not a big deal. 3.0 is plenty. 99% e2180 will run 3.0 stock cooling.
February 26, 2008 4:32:17 PM

roadrunner197069 said:
3.0-3.33 is not a big deal. 3.0 is plenty. 99% e2180 will run 3.0 stock cooling.


3.0 was easy as setting system bus to 300 from 200. I had no voltage change even. 50% OC isn't bad. This is my get me by chip anyways, though. :p 
February 26, 2008 5:44:00 PM

Just an FYI about Photoshop CS3 (and versions for the near future) as a 64-bit application:

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/12/64_bitswhen.ht...

It's a little over a year old blog entry, but it gives a good idea of where Adobe is (or isn't) headed with regards to 64-bit versions of Photoshop for the near future.

(*edited: still learning how to spell)
February 26, 2008 6:49:18 PM

Vista runs applications slower than XP. I would stick with XP for as long as possible. Perhaps in the next 2-3 years there will come a turning point where vista is required but till that point Im not going to use it and I even have it installed!
February 26, 2008 11:09:35 PM

A nano second isn't what I call slow.
February 26, 2008 11:56:16 PM

runswindows95 said:
My advice on hardware:

Photoshop is CPU heavy, not GPU. Drop the 3870X2, go with a single 3870/8800GT and spend the extra money on at least a Q6600.

Word!
!